Ortega y Gasset's Perspectivism

[@iknowcpr]

Thanks for all these lectures!

[@kylesty6728]

I have a much better perspective of Perspectivism now that I’ve heard your perspective.

[@torivillar6263]

This is a great explanation. Thank you!

[@cmarqz1]

Brillante !!!

[@kevincurrie-knight3267]

Here's the visual I always use for this: Imagine an office building that, as office buildings do, have a lot of security cameras. One on this side of the hall, one on that side of the hall, a few placed in different areas of the lobby, etc. All of these are perspectives on the building's inside; all give truths about the building, but none give 'the whole truth.' When we talk about what the objective or real or ultimate truth is about the building, what we are envisioning is getting inside that security room where we can see on different monitors each different security camera's angle; that way, we can add those perspectives together to get the full truth. But what Ortega (and Nietzsche and Zhuangzi and William James) say (in different ways) is that while we can imagine that security room, it doesn't actually exist.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

That's a great analogy.

[@KuroYagi124]

This is so intuitive and has been for me from a very young age. It is really baffling to me how it was divided in black and white throught human history. Even amongst scholars and philosophers

[@deusvult9837]

Professor Bonevac, thank you for the enthusiasm (in the lofty Platonic sense of the word) with which you impart philosophical knowledge and which i find particularly contagious and agreeable. Now what i find problematic about Ortegas' perspectivism is this: while obviously he is not trying to repeat the truism that no man can have an omniscient God like grasp of the real, and perpectives can be shared, what about the situation where they can also coincide, for instance that of two scientists from different backgrounds and different parts of the world conducting similar experiments and arriving at exactly the same conclusions? Are their grasp of the real merely perspectival? Secondly, each person's take on the real is personal and perspectival, but are they equally valid or true? This is something i would have liked you to go into. Finally, obviously man by his limited perspective, can go so far in his discovery of the real, but what if the real is revealed more deeply to him by God, the 'Nowhere' of Ortega, giving him the profoundest and truest perspective on the real that man is capable of attaining within the limitations of this world? BTW, Ortega is one of my favourites and i am only a committed amateur philosopher.

[@santillanmusic]

I really like your last 2 key points!

[@Bruh-el9js]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't idealists agree that there is indeed something material and true, but we don't experience it purely, because everything has to go through some filter which is most of the time our mind, and that we understand arbitrary physical relations with man made numbers, concepts and properties when in reality those things are just part of a absolute unity and all abstraction is a construct.

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

That's epistemological idealism

[@Bruh-el9js]

@@Sazi_de_Afrikan thanks

[@peterlynley]

I have heard of him as the author of "Revolt of the Masses" but was not aware of this aspect of his philosophy. Are there any introductory books out either by or about him that are accessible to a non-philosopher that you could recommend?

[@TheHoldout]

I think you would really enjoy his book some lessons in metaphysics

[@MythicDawn]

Man & Crisis

[@santillanmusic]

One must shed his or her identity, only then can one see clearly...

[@MrGabrielReale]

say like you wanna going in to his flow becouse yo are his audience filosofi stones